Sorry, But You Can't Define How To Create Exceptional Golf Architecture

[Tim Martin]

Tom-To play devil’s advocate NGLA certainly follows the template model and is almost universally accepted as great.

Tim, along with NGLA add Fishers Island, Camargo, Lido, St. Louis CC, Chicago Golf, Mid-Ocean, Old White, Yale, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, parts of Merion and ANGC...

... and Tom's own Old Mac. 

i.e. the list of exceptional golf courses based on templates is long and outstanding.

My own comments:

1)  NGLA was not a "template course".  It INVENTED the idea of templates, so Macdonald could design them however he wanted to fit the land.  It's also an exceptional piece of ground, as are several of the others listed, to Ian's first point.

2)  At Old Macdonald we held out to REINVENT the templates instead of doing the cookie-cutter version of them.  If we'd gone with the cookies I don't think the course would be nearly as successful.

3)  There is a difference between "great" and "exceptional".  All of the courses listed may be considered great, but not many of them are really exceptional.

Taking your points one at a time...

1) I disagree.  NGLA is almost entirely templates.  Yes it was the the first template course, but a template course nonetheless: the Grandmother of Templates, designed by the Grandfather of US golf architecture.

2)  Agree totally about Old Mac, but don't see how that changes the fact that the designer based it on templates.  If anything, Old Mac shows the flexibility in the template concept.   

3) This seems like semantics to me, but accepting some undefined distinction, do you not consider Yale and Fishers exceptional?  Many who wrote about Lido thought it was exceptional: one of the revered golf critics of the time called it the best course in the world.  Merion is a ten on the Doak scale, and just about every other scale as well.  Most rate ANGC a ten, and IIRC you gave it a 9, which surely is exceptional.  Most consider Old Mac exceptional. 

Overall, anything in the world top 100 seems exceptional to me.  With 30,000 courses globally, that's the upper one third of one percent.  That isn't exceptional?     

I get the feeling you, Tom, don't like the constraints a template course puts on you.  Yet Old Mac, Merion and ANGC show how broad-ranging the concept can be.  I used to wish, in vain I'm sure, that you would be the one to recreate Lido, if that project ever got off the ground.  I thought and think no one could do it better than you, even if you were slightly gagging at the prospect.   

For years I've wondered what CPC would have looked like had Raynor lived to complete its design.  Where would the templates have gone?  Would the course get the sky-high rankings it does now, almost always counted among the top few in the world?

Jim-I don’t know what the distinction between great and exceptional is but the current Golf Magazine U.S. Top 100 list includes twelve Mac/Raynor courses based on a sample population north of 15,000. I don’t care what adjective is used but I would say that is rarified air.

[Edward Glidewell]

I don't want to put words in Mr. Doak's mouth, and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he was differentiating between the two by saying a course can be great without being exceptional. And, if I'm understanding him correctly, he may even venture as far as to say a course could be exceptional without necessarily being great (but that may be a leap he did not intend).


I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.

[Tim Martin]

I don't want to put words in Mr. Doak's mouth, and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he was differentiating between the two by saying a course can be great without being exceptional. And, if I'm understanding him correctly, he may even venture as far as to say a course could be exceptional without necessarily being great (but that may be a leap he did not intend).


I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.

Ed-I’m pretty sure he will clarify.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't want to put words in Mr. Doak's mouth, and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he was differentiating between the two by saying a course can be great without being exceptional. And, if I'm understanding him correctly, he may even venture as far as to say a course could be exceptional without necessarily being great (but that may be a leap he did not intend).


I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.

I should just let Edward continue the conversation on my behalf.  He got it spot on.


We are using different definitions of "exceptional" than Jim N or Tim.  They are thinking it's just a synonym of "great" -- if they think any course in the top 100 is exceptional.  We are using "exceptional" as "an exception to the rule", or really different ... something that does more than just tick the boxes of what is conventionally considered great.


For example, I think Tobacco Road is exceptional, but I don't think it's great.  It's got flaws and it wears them on its sleeve.  It's still worth seeing, more than whatever is the next Raynor course on your list.


Also, NGLA may be mostly templates - or pieces of templates - as you know them now.  But they didn't really exist beforehand, other than the Eden and the Redan and the Road greens, and Macdonald would have had license to redefine even those if he couldn't figure out how to fit them to that site.  Just look how different the Alps is from what's at Prestwick!


I'm just amazed that so many people celebrate the paint-by-numbers approach to design.

[V. Kmetz]

I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.

For example, I think Tobacco Road is exceptional, but I don't think it's great.  It's got flaws and it wears them on its sleeve.  It's still worth seeing, more than whatever is the next Raynor course on your list.

Also, NGLA may be mostly templates - or pieces of templates - as you know them now.  But they didn't really exist beforehand, other than the Eden and the Redan and the Road greens, and Macdonald would have had license to redefine even those if he couldn't figure out how to fit them to that site.  Just look how different the Alps is from what's at Prestwick!




Tom says Tobacco Road...and though I've only observed from afar, I understand precisely...this pendulum needle swings back and forth all the time for me locally...


Exceptional, not great = Apawamis, Hudson National, Blind Brook


Great, not (consistently/always)exceptional = Siwanoy, WFW, CC of Fairfield


Great AND exceptional = WFE, Yale, Fishers


cheers   vk

[Jim Nugent]

We are using different definitions of "exceptional" than Jim N or Tim.  They are thinking it's just a synonym of "great" -- if they think any course in the top 100 is exceptional.  We are using "exceptional" as "an exception to the rule", or really different ... something that does more than just tick the boxes of what is conventionally considered great.

Here are the three definitions Webster's online gives for exceptional:
 
1. : forming an exception : rare                     

• an exceptional number of rainy days

                     2  : better than average : superior                     

• exceptional skill

                      3  : deviating from the norm: such as                a  : having above or below average intelligence                   b  : physically disabled                 
To me all the template-based or related courses I listed earlier satisfy any part of that definition: they are superior, better than average; they form an exception by being among the top fraction of 1% of all courses in the world; and they deviate from the norm for the same reason as well.   

Even using your definition of exceptional, which seems to me more like 'unique,' which of the courses I noted in my last post do you not consider exceptional? 

[Jeff Schley]

We are using different definitions of "exceptional" than Jim N or Tim.  They are thinking it's just a synonym of "great" -- if they think any course in the top 100 is exceptional.  We are using "exceptional" as "an exception to the rule", or really different ... something that does more than just tick the boxes of what is conventionally considered great.

Here are the three definitions Webster's online gives for exceptional:
 
1. : forming an exception : rare                     

• an exceptional number of rainy days

                     2  : better than average : superior                     

• exceptional skill

                      3  : deviating from the norm: such as                a  : having above or below average intelligence                   b  : physically disabled                 
To me all the template-based or related courses I listed earlier satisfy any part of that definition: they are superior, better than average; they form an exception by being among the top fraction of 1% of all courses in the world; and they deviate from the norm for the same reason as well.   

Even using your definition of exceptional, which seems to me more like 'unique,' which of the courses I noted in my last post do you not consider exceptional?

I was just going to type UNIQUE as perhaps the best word to take the place of exceptional or first of its kind. My golf swing is UNIQUE, but sure as heck not exceptional.    Just semantics and agreeing to call something so as to best describe it.

I would say NGLA is the great and the first of its kind.  It has first movers advantage as you can say well NGLA did that first.

[Sean_A]

Can a course truly be unique?  Taking Tobacco Road for instance, I suggest the course is unique in terms of the modern design in North Carolina context, not because the holes are unique.  All the holes exist in some form or another somewhere else....just as is the case with practically every hole on the planet.

BTW...I agree with Tom, Tobacco Road isn't a great course, but that hardly matters in the big scheme of things.  The Road is one of the most fun courses created in my lifetime and that is saying something.

Ironically, I think if archies set out to build a great course there is a higher likelyhood of design by numbers being the result.  Greatness is over-rated.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


Perhaps that would be because GD and others have lists and criteria for the 100 Greatest Courses, but none for the 100 most exceptional courses.  And, each lists criteria has a guidebook for getting to "great."


I can't place it right now, but I suspect at most, there have been a few 10 or so course lists for exceptional or unique courses, not the full 100.  In fact, if there were 100 that fit the criteria, they might not be all that exceptional anyway. The dirty dozen would be a better list for that.

[Tom_Doak]

I can't place it right now, but I suspect at most, there have been a few 10 or so course lists for exceptional or unique courses, not the full 100.  In fact, if there were 100 that fit the criteria, they might not be all that exceptional anyway. The dirty dozen would be a better list for that.

I have no interest in trying to invent another top-100 list, but there are WAY more than a dozen courses that would qualify as "exceptional" by my definition.  [I don't like to use the word "unique" because of semantic arguments about whether anything is truly original ... the first definition of exceptional as "rare" is good enough for me, in that it disqualifies instances of an architect using the same concept 100 times.]


Just out of the world top twenty, I think you'd have to include as exceptional:


1  St. Andrews as the mother ship
2  Pine Valley for its target golf concept
3  Cypress Point for its integration of natural dunes
4  Oakmont for its exploration of "tilt"
5  Royal County Down for its embrace of blind shots and shaggy bunkering
6  Sand Hills for its lack of artifice
7  Augusta National for its width and the severity of its greens
8  Pinehurst No. 2 for its green complexes
9  Merion for its genius routing plan


And that's just a start - I'm not looking at the list.  Suffice to say there will be plenty of room for Askernish, Prestwick, Dornoch, Royal Worlington & Newmarket, and maybe Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart; also Garden City, Shinnecock Hills, Harbour Town, the TPC at Sawgrass, Shadow Creek, The Sheep Ranch and The Loop, and a few holes of Black Diamond; and then the way-out-there places like Himalayan Golf Club.


But as Ian's original post emphasizes, I'm not trying to define it, nor to suggest that doing something truly exceptional should be everyone's goal.  It's only for the people who think differently enough to get there without trying too hard.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I'll agree there are probably more than a dozen, but probably less than 100, but that is not an exact science.


The problem with being exceptional "for" something, a la County Downs shaggy bunkers is that so many immediately try to copy the exceptional feature, making it much less rare. 


Maybe there is something to being first.  For example, while all the other Sand Hill courses are just fine, I really am only interested in a return trip to the original, Sand Hills, myself.  TOC is of course the Mother of all mother ships and would qualify. Or the first in America, since CP can't be the first to incorporate dunes.


On the other hand, since Templates have been brought up, there may be something to being better, a la NGLA's Redan being thought to be better than the N Berwick original (by many).


Again, so very hard to define, and yet, by typing these posts, we continue to try......

[Edward Glidewell]

And that's just a start - I'm not looking at the list.  Suffice to say there will be plenty of room for Askernish, Prestwick, Dornoch, Royal Worlington & Newmarket, and maybe Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart; also Garden City, Shinnecock Hills, Harbour Town, the TPC at Sawgrass, Shadow Creek, The Sheep Ranch and The Loop, and a few holes of Black Diamond; and then the way-out-there places like Himalayan Golf Club.

What about a course like the original Stone Harbor?


Is there any sort of requirement of a baseline level of quality?

[Tom_Doak]

What about a course like the original Stone Harbor?


Is there any sort of requirement of a baseline level of quality?

Edward:


Sure, there is such a thing as "exceptionally bad".  That's why I don't want to make a list!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just got an email from my old landscape architecture program, regarding their new website.  Among other things, one of the home page quotes was "Design is "felt"."  That may sum it up as far as it needs to be summed up and analyzed.

[Edward Glidewell]

Edward:


Sure, there is such a thing as "exceptionally bad".  That's why I don't want to make a list!

Hah! I thought so. Uniquely terrible.


I asked because I think I could easily design a course with holes no one had ever seen before, but it would almost certainly be a terrible course that no one would want to play.

[George Pazin]

I don't want to put words in Mr. Doak's mouth, and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he was differentiating between the two by saying a course can be great without being exceptional. And, if I'm understanding him correctly, he may even venture as far as to say a course could be exceptional without necessarily being great (but that may be a leap he did not intend).


I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.

I should just let Edward continue the conversation on my behalf.  He got it spot on.


We are using different definitions of "exceptional" than Jim N or Tim.  They are thinking it's just a synonym of "great" -- if they think any course in the top 100 is exceptional.  We are using "exceptional" as "an exception to the rule", or really different ... something that does more than just tick the boxes of what is conventionally considered great.


For example, I think Tobacco Road is exceptional, but I don't think it's great.  It's got flaws and it wears them on its sleeve.  It's still worth seeing, more than whatever is the next Raynor course on your list.


Also, NGLA may be mostly templates - or pieces of templates - as you know them now.  But they didn't really exist beforehand, other than the Eden and the Redan and the Road greens, and Macdonald would have had license to redefine even those if he couldn't figure out how to fit them to that site.  Just look how different the Alps is from what's at Prestwick!


I'm just amazed that so many people celebrate the paint-by-numbers approach to design.

All makes sense to me, as well as the other answers, thanks for sharing your thoughts.


I will say, as much as my limited experiences handicaps my ability to rank or rate courses, it is even worse when identifying exceptional. The few courses I've seen that are "exceptional" - Wolf Creek in NV springs to mind - are courses I have no desire to ever play again.


By contrast, I wouldn't call Mountain Ridge in NJ exceptional (under your definition), but I'd be happy to tee it up there any day of the week.

[Bill Raffo]

I often think about the benefits of the template designers of the Golden Era.  They had tried and true strategic hole designs in their back pocket and then would look at the property and figure out the best locations to integrate those designs, tweaking and individualizing them depending on what made the most sense.

Those courses rarely disappoint and the philosophy seems a more sure way to ensure you'll come up with something that challenges and pleases the majority of golfers. I suppose there is a lot of pressure on GCA's to do something unique on almost every hole, on every course. But it's harder and more hit and miss.

Do you understand the difference between "rarely disappoint" and exceptional ??

It wasn't my thought walking off the 18th at Ballyneal. That was exceptional. But on the 18th, after winding through almost any Florida golf community? Absolutely.

[Forrest Richardson]

Very interesting thread! Ian, please continue.


What makes golf design so different from virtually ever other form of art or the built environment is that it is, all in one, a game (playing board) and also a landscape...open space. I suppose if I were to try and disagree with Ian, only for the sake of seeing IF I could come up with a way to define exceptional golf architecture, I would say this:


It is defined by those who play. If they come back to the course, talk it up, recommend it, enjoy it or cherish it in their golf memory bank...then the design — at least to that golfer — is exceptional. And, when you collect the similar minded recommendations, feelings and positive memories of a bunch of golfers, then you can say a particular course has "exceptional golf architecture".

While I violate the following rule, I would say that the worst place to be trying to define it is by seeking the opinions of the golf architects themselves...unless we are using the feelings of golfers as our guide. It is very complex, for which Ian deserves a gold star.

[Ian Andrew]

Forrest,


Tobacco Road divides player's opinions from exception to awful.
The difference come down to personal taste.


But regardless of what others think of it - time (imho) says it "is" an important piece of work.
Just look at the influence it has had and the people devoted to the course.


Exceptional is more complex than just the golfer's choice.
Some of the greatest works of art take time to be understood and fully appreciated.


TPC at Sawgrass was hated upon opening and is now revered - largely by the same people ...
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes. Good points. Tobacco Road is "exceptional" for some. For others, not so. Just like any piece of art.

[Kalen Braley]

Speaking of TR....


And this is just a total shot in the dark, but how interesting and/or feasible would it be to have a top notch pro tourney there?  Would the confines allow for spectating, or too impractical?  Perhaps a smaller event like a Walker Cup where galleries are small?


Just wondering....

[Adam Lawrence]

Speaking of TR....


And this is just a total shot in the dark, but how interesting and/or feasible would it be to have a top notch pro tourney there?  Would the confines allow for spectating, or too impractical?  Perhaps a smaller event like a Walker Cup where galleries are small?


Just wondering....

It's only 6,500 yards. They'd just blast it straight over all the quirk

[Kalen Braley]

Speaking of TR....


And this is just a total shot in the dark, but how interesting and/or feasible would it be to have a top notch pro tourney there?  Would the confines allow for spectating, or too impractical?  Perhaps a smaller event like a Walker Cup where galleries are small?


Just wondering....

It's only 6,500 yards. They'd just blast it straight over all the quirk

I'm sure an extra 500 yards could be found! 


Thanks for the info Adam..

[Tim Gallant]

Ian,


A great OP - certainly lots to think about.


My thoughts:

'I find there is a lot of threads that talk about specific details and are trying to determine hard and fast rules. I assume they would like to make the evaluation of golf course architecture more scientific. [/size]In my opinion, you can't define how to create exceptional golf architecture.'

[/color][/size]I would agree with this, but I would add that IMHO, you can't create exceptional golf course design without knowing the rules that you say can't lead to exceptional design. If I don't know what the non-exceptional is, how can I create the exceptional? For me, that's why I love to discuss, and try to come to some general consensus for what constitutes good or even great course design. Will that lead to exceptional design? As you say, probably not. It might not even lead to good design, depending on your execution. But if I don't know what to break, how can I break it?[/size]Even the most famous painters in the world generally had some schooling, or mentor. Picasso didn't start cubism without first understanding what wasn't cubism. Macdonald didn't create National without first knowing what courses there were in America at the time. I think this goes to your point about intention. Pete Dye had an intention, and so did C&C at Sand Hills. It may not be 'unique' as Tom says, but it was rare, at least at the time they created these masterpieces.

[Tim Martin]

Ian,


A great OP - certainly lots to think about.


My thoughts:


'I find there is a lot of threads that talk about specific details and are trying to determine hard and fast rules. I assume they would like to make the evaluation of golf course architecture more scientific.In my opinion, you can't define how to create exceptional golf architecture.'


I would agree with this, but I would add that IMHO, you can't create exceptional golf course design without knowing the rules that you say can't lead to exceptional design. If I don't know what the non-exceptional is, how can I create the exceptional? For me, that's why I love to discuss, and try to come to some general consensus for what constitutes good or even great course design. Will that lead to exceptional design? As you say, probably not. It might not even lead to good design, depending on your execution. But if I don't know what to break, how can I break it?Even the most famous painters in the world generally had some schooling, or mentor. Picasso didn't start cubism without first understanding what wasn't cubism. Macdonald didn't create National without first knowing what courses there were in America at the time. I think this goes to your point about intention. Pete Dye had an intention, and so did C&C at Sand Hills. It may not be 'unique' as Tom says, but it was rare, at least at the time they created these masterpieces.

Tim-I enjoyed your thoughts but am focused on the last sentence. I think unique is overrated as it relates to golf course architecture. I’ll take compelling and fun regardless of the the moniker attached as in unique, original, formulaic, or even recycled. If the masses are enjoying the product and it is functional from a design and maintenance perspective then it doesn’t matter to me what adjective is attached. I never tire of the template holes from the ODG’s.